Chapter 9

Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard and other Church leaders also contributed to the sending of gift parcels to the Jews who had been deported. On November 29, 1943, the Bishops jointly addressed Dr. Best through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to gain his support for this work. The appeal read as follows:

"It is with deep sorrow and disappointment that we perceive through developing circumstances, that our appeal to the German authorities over the Jewish question has not born fruit. But our interest in, and deep sympathy with, our deported countrymen is undiminished, and as there now seems to be a possibility that we can send support and aid in the form of food from this country, we wish to suggest to the Danish Church communities that they should send help to the interned Jews, in the form of gift parcels, through the Red Cross. In our relationship with the community, we know that the Christian conscience of our people and their conception of justice has suffered a painful wound, and how deep a need they feel to help. We would therefore be grateful to the Director of the Department of Foreign Affairs if he would inform Dr. Best of our attitude and point out to him that support from competent German representatives towards a good solution of this question would be met with deep satisfaction within Church circles, the members of whom would, through this Christian and humane activity, find a way to express their deep concern over this matter." [394]

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Red Cross and the pastors of Copenhagen acted unanimously in this large-scale assistance to the Danish Jews in Theresienstadt, an action which was successful beyond all expectation. Of the 475 Jews who were deported to Theresienstadt, all returned with the exception of 53 who had died. <170>

In December, 1943, Bishop Malmstrom prayed for the Jews in a broadcast religious service. Thereupon the German authorities demanded the right to make a preliminary censorship of broadcast services. Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard then sent a statement through the Foreign Ministry to the German authorities, in which he stated that if censorship was introduced, neither the Sunday services nor the morning devotions would continue to be broadcast, and that the reason for this measure would be made public from all pulpits. A week later, the Bishop was informed by the German authorities that "the incident was due to a misunderstanding". [395]

In February, 1944, the Bishops sent a letter to their congregations in which they requested prayer "for God's ancient chosen people, trusting that God will help where we see no way to do so." [396] <171>

The crucial question, whether the Church was influenced by general public opinion or whether it was the other way round, has been discussed in ch. 2.

THE SATELLITE COUNTRIES

27 SLOVAKIA

On the eve of the German invasion of Czechoslovakia, on March 14, 1939, Slovakia declared its independence, and on March 23, the agreement of German protection was signed. Following the first Vienna award on November 2, 1938, parts of former Slovakian territory with about 40,000 Jews were annexed by Hungary, together with parts of Sub Carpathian Ruthenia. After the occupation of all of Carpatho-Ruthenia containing 100,000 Jews, by Hungary, about 90,000 Jews remained in "independent" Slovakia. A Catholic priest (Dr. Josef Tiso) was head of the Slovakian State. On April 18, 1939, the first anti-Jewish decree was enacted. A special Department for Jewish Affairs was opened in the Ministry of Interior. It co-operated with the Hlinka Guard.

The Council of the Evangelical (Lutheran) Pastors' Union decided, in its session of November 21, 1939, to send a Memorandum to the President and the Government of Slovakia, regarding the Hlinka Youth organization and the Hlinka Guard. We quote the following:

"We, as Evangelical Christians and as citizens, cannot agree with the following facts: the annulment of individual rights and freedom of certain people; the taking of steps against the Jews without legal basis, by means of violence, for instance, that the men of the Hlinka Guard, during the night, dragged Jews - women, mothers and children - out of their beds and transported them to concentration camps; illegally imposing of fines etc.; transgressions which are performed though they are contrary to the law and to Christian ethics." [397] <172>

The first deportation train left Slovakia on March 26, 1942. In August 1942, the Jewish population had been reduced to 25,000. On August 23, 1944, a rebellion broke out which was ruthlessly quelled. In the autumn of 1944, 13,500 of the remainder of Slovakian Jewry were deported. In the whole of Slovakia there remained not more than about 4,000 to 5,000 Jews. [398]

The Convent of (Lutheran) Bishops, under the Chairmanship of Dr. Vladimir Cobrda and Dr. Samuel Stefan Osusky, decided to issue a Pastoral letter about the "Jewish Question", on May 20, 1942. We quote the following:

"... The Evangelical (Lutheran) Church neither can nor wishes to interfere in the executive power of the competent government departments, whose duty it is to solve the problems. The Church, however, is convinced that it is possible and thus also necessary to solve this problem in a just, humane and Christian way, according to the Christian principles which are based on the eternal laws of God and the teaching of Christ. According to this teaching, all men are endowed with the right to live, to earn a honourable livelihood, and the right to family-life. It also protects the honour of the Jews as human beings, so that not one of them should feel deprived because of his national, religious or racial attachments. The racial law however, which some people champion, is contrary to the Christian faith, which accepts the biblical message that God is the Creator of all things and of all mankind, 'from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name' (Ephesians 3, 14). 'He is the head, and on him the whole body depends. Bonded and knit together by every constituent joint, the whole frame grows through the due activity of each part, and builds itself up in love' (Ephesians 4, 16). To our sorrow we have been compelled to witness deeds which cannot be justified. They are contrary to human feelings, to justice and to the law of God; they are in no way related to love. Such things could not happen, if all would honour the declaration broadcast by the Ministry of Interior, that no harm would be done to the Jews, that they would be treated in a humane and Christian way, and that they should just have to work as the other citizens. <173> The Church cannot reconcile itself to these deeds which we have witnessed in many places. The Church cannot but express its sorrow about them and reject them. If members of the Evangelical Church participated in these deeds, they must be severely condemned for this..." [399]

"The Times" of August 11, 1942, commented on this pastoral letter as follows:

"The Slovak Lutheran Church, under the leadership of the Bishops Dr. Cobrda and Dr. Osusky, has taken the lead in the fight against Nazism in Slovakia. From the pulpits of all Protestant Churches in Slovakia a pastoral letter was read on May 31. In this the bishops condemned an 'immature political ideology' modelled on Nazi and Fascist lines and emphasized loyalty to the Gospel of Christ. They also condemned the anti-Jewish policy and defended the right of the Church, to baptize proselytes from Judaism on religious grounds. The pastoral letter, the first of its kind in this part of Europe, has caused a profound sensation in central and south-eastern Europe (particularly in Hungary, where a substantial Protestant congregation exists). Nazi circles in Slovakia are particularly aggrieved since the bishops in question are considered as leading authorities in Church matters, even outside Slovakia... Roughly one sixth of the Slovak population are Protestants."

We have discussed the matter of the so-called "mercy-baptisms" in chapter 5. Suffice it here to mention that pastors in Slovakia were in peril of their life if they dared to baptize Jews, during the second world war.

28 RUMANIA

In June, 1940, the Russians took back Bess Arabia and occupied Northern Bucovina. In August, Hungary carved out for itself Northern Transylvania and the Bulgarians occupied Southern Dobrudja. On September 5, General Ion Antonescu took over the government as Conducator of Rumania, and on October 7, 1940, German troops arrived in Rumania. At the beginning of 1941, the Fascist Iron Guard tried to overthrow General Antonescu. The revolt was crushed, but members of the Iron Guard had murdered hundreds of Jews in Bucharest. <174> In June, 1941, Germany invaded Russia; Rumania reconquered Bucovina and Bess Arabia. On July 29, 1941, Rumanian soldiers murdered at least 4,000 Jews in Jassy. The Rumanians deported an estimated 185,000 Jews from Dorohoi, Bucovina and Bess Arabia to Transnistria, in the Soviet Ukraine. By May, 1942, about two-thirds of these Jews had died. [400]

Strong anti-Semitic influences were manifest in the Rumanian Orthodox Church. On August 18, 1937, Patriarch Miron Cristea had issued a statement calling upon the Rumanian nation "to fight the Jewish parasites". [401]

Chief Rabbi Dr. Safran relates his frantic efforts to try to avert the deportation of the Jews in the districts of Dorohoi, Bucovina and Bessarabia. It was decided that he should approach the head of the Orthodox Church, the old Patriarch Nicodemus.

"... During the dramatic conversation I had with the Patriarch, who was rather indifferent at the beginning pretending that it was all the affair of the government, he changed his attitude in view of my growing emotion which I was unable to hide from him. I spoke of the terrible responsibility he was taking upon his conscience in the eyes of the Supreme Judge, and ended by throwing myself at the feet of his pontifical seat. Deeply moved, the Patriarch lifted me up and promised to do his best. On taking my leave of him I sensed that he intended to ask for the support of the Queen-mother." [402]

Chief Rabbi Safran immediately took steps to get in touch with King Michael and the Queen-mother Helena to prepare them for a possible appeal from the Patriarch Nicodemus.

"The Patriarch, on his part, first sought unsuccessfully, to intervene with Antonescu; and then addressed himself to the King and the Queen-mother. <175> The Queen-mother suggested that Baron Manfred von Killinger, the German ambassador, should be invited to the palace for a meal during which a last appeal should be attempted. In the course of this dinner the Queen-mother spoke fervently on behalf of the innocent victims, but he, in the presence of the King and the Patriarch, responded with an obstinate, brutal refusal."

These interventions of the Queen-mother and the Patriarch (who unfortunately was to disappoint Dr. Safran later on) nevertheless helped to make it possible for the rest of the Jewish population of Czernovitz to stay in the Bucovinian capital. [403]

Chief Rabbi Safran then heard of the arrival of the Metropolitan of the Bucovina, Tot Simedrea, in Bucharest, whose anti-Semitic feelings were known. Nevertheless Dr. Safran called on him.

"Contrary to my expectations, Mgr. Simedrea revealed an understanding attitude. He told me of the feelings aroused in him by the sight of the Jews of Czernovitz being deported to the ghetto, during which he had seen a Rumanian soldier carrying a sick old Jewish women on his shoulders. He also had heard the heart-rendering cries of Jewish mental patients who formed part of this tragic convoy. The Metropolitan effectively intervened with the Government of Bucharest and on his return to Czernovitz exerted pressure on the Governor-General of the Bucovina. These, together with other similar appeals, brought to an end the deportation of Jews from the capital of this province." [404]

In the summer of 1942, pressure was exerted on Antonescu by the Germans, to order the deportation of all Jews of Rumania. The Germans obtained the consent of the Rumanian Government for this. Trains were already prepared for the deportation. Then a delegation of the Jewish communities of South Transylvania informed Dr. Safran that all technical steps for the operation had just been taken in their province. Appeals to the authorities had been in vain. Dr. Safran relates:

"One sole course remained to be tried - an appeal to Metropolitan Balan, head of the Orthodox Church of Transylvania, well-known both for his anti-Semitism and for the great influence he had with leading figures in the government, and with Marshal Antonescu in particular. <176> Following a brief consultation we gave up the original idea of my proceeding to Sibiu, for fear of arousing the attention of the Gestapo and the Centre for Jewish Affairs. I accordingly adopted a most daring course. Using the services of an intermediary, I begged the Metropolitan to come to Bucharest."

In the meantime, Metropolitan Balan had come to the capital and informed Dr. Safran by telephone that he would be waiting for him at the house of General Vaitoianu with whom he was staying.

"Our meeting took place in an extremely tense atmosphere. I assumed an accusing tone which could only have been inspired by despair. [405] The Metropolitan walked up and down the room without saying a word. Finally he took up the telephone and called Marshal Antonescu with whom he asked for an urgent interview. The Marshal was reported to be busy, but they agreed to have lunch together. In the meantime I communicated to Mgr. Balan the news that for several weeks the authorities in Bucharest had been deporting not only Jews, condemned without trial, of not having reported for compulsory labour, but also their parents and children. The Metropolitan immediately telephoned the Vice-Premier, Minister Michael Antonescu, and told him what he just had learned. The Minister promised to look into the matter. As a result, after a few days there were no more deportations from Bucharest. I accompanied the Metropolitan to his car which was to take him to the Dictator, pleading with him to use all the means in his power to obtain a favourable decision. My prayers followed him after he had left... Three hours later the sonorous voice of the Metropolitan told me over the telephone that the Marshal had given in. The Jews of South Transylvania had been saved." [406]

There are other countries in which Church leaders courageously and whole heartedly stood up for the Jews and yet their interventions seldom had any result at all. In Rumania, however, the intervention of the Orthodox leaders seems to have been quite successful. It is typical of Rumania that no public protests were issued. Church leaders personally intervened. These interventions took place only after Chief Rabbi Safran had implored the Orthodox leaders to come to the rescue of the Jews. <177> It is difficult to ascertain what exactly moved these apparently reluctant saviours to take action. The change of heart with Patriarch Nicodemus seems to have come after Dr. Safran had spoken "of the terrible responsibility he was taking upon his conscience in the eyes of the Supreme Judge". Metropolitan Simedrea told Dr. Safran "of the feelings aroused in him by the sight of the Jews of Czernovitz being deported to the ghetto ". According to a report of Matatias Carp, there was in 1940 a Jewish population in Rumania of approximately 760,000, of whom 400,000 were massacred. "Among the victims, 250,000 lie on the conscience of the Rumanian Fascist Government directly. [407]

There are two other non-Roman Catholic Churches of some importance in Rumania. The Reformed Church of Rumania is the Church of the Hungarian national minority. I have not been able to find any particulars about the attitude of this Church regarding anti-Semitism. The Evangelical (Lutheran) Church of the Augsburg Confession is mainly the Church of the German immigrants.

In spring 1942, the National Consistory of this Church decided, on a motion of Bishop Staedel, that their Church would join the "Institute for Research into the Jewish influence upon German Church life", founded in Eisenach (Germany). A study group was formed, which, in close contact with the Eisenach Institute, sought "to make the results of its scientific work fruitful for the life and future form of the Lutheran Church in Rumania". At the first conference of the study group, at the beginning of March, 1942, the following statement by Bishop Staedel was accepted as the guiding principle for the work as a whole:

"We are deeply convinced that at this time of national revival, we are making it extremely difficult for a German to come to Jesus Christ if we present him with a continuous and detailed treatment of the Old Testament. In the two hours every week, which are meant to be devoted to bringing the message of the Saviour to the German in his national character and community, we have absolutely no room for the national and messianic history of the Israelite-Jewish people. <178> Therefore we advocate the elimination of the Old Testament so far as possible from the religious life of the Germans, and thus from the Lutheran religious instruction." [408]

A statement made by the leader of the "scientific work" of the study group described the motives underlying its work as follows:

"The decisive impulse has come to us from outside, from the political life of the German people. In the national-socialist revolution, however, this nation has confessed to a year-long guilt, for having failed to guard its God-given torch of the Nordic Aryan vision of life, allowing it to flicker and die out under the influence of foreign, especially Jewish, intrigues. Now this light will once again burn for the nation in all its purity. What wonder then that people are now coming to the Church, demanding of it the same confession of guilt, even more insistently because the Church has taken the Bible of the Jews into its own canon of Scripture. Thus it has consciously held open at least an aperture through which an essentially foreign spirit could infiltrate into our national life. [409]

Bishop D. Friedrich Mueller, the present head of this Church, replied to my circular letter and stated:

"As soon as the alliance (between Germany and Rumania) came into force, the fascist government of Rumania promulgated a law by which a 'German community in Rumania' was constituted. Par. 4 of this law granted to the leader of this community the right, to issue decrees compulsory upon the Rumanian citizens of German descent. Thus supported, the 'leader of the community' succeeded in compelling Dr. Victor Glondys, the Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Rumania, to resign, whereupon he appointed his political associate, Wilhelm Staedel, as the head of the Church. Even Staedel did not give in to him completely but tried to follow the policy of the 'German Christians'. [410] In a admonition to my congregation I made a stand against both attempts. This led to several actions of persecution... By secret consultations we could win about 80 per cent of our pastors for resistance and a clear Christian preaching, based on the Old as well as the New Testament... I do not know of any case in which members of my Church co-operated in the persecution of the Jews. Unfortunately there are no documentary proofs of this, because of the atmosphere of the time. During the fascist dictatorship in Rumania censorship existed, which prevented publication of statements on behalf of the Jews. <179> I could not, for instance, publish my warning mentioned above nor send it by mail. Copies of it had to be passed on from hand to hand. Similarly, as a precaution, I had to destroy my archives during the persecution. I myself no longer have a copy." [411]

I requested Dr. Safran to comment on this letter. He replied:

"Concerning the attitude of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Rumania towards my co-religionists in distress during the period of Nazi oppression, I must tell you that we did not receive any help or comfort from this Church in our terrible suffering, not even a token of human compassion.

In 1942, in order to request his intervention on our behalf, I intended to go to the Metropolitan of the Orthodox Rumanian Church, Mgr. Balan, whose residence was in Sibiu, where also was the Centre of the Evangelical Church. I was warned, however, that the members of this Church living in Sibiu were capable of betraying me to the Gestapo - with which they maintained direct relations - in order to prevent me from approaching Mgr. Balan." [412]

The letter from Bishop Mueller seems to suggest that there existed a kind of "Confessing Church" in Rumania. If this name is correct for the group mentioned by him, it should be added that the existence of this "Confessing Church in Rumania" was not, contrary to what can be said about the Confessing Church in Germany, a very manifest phenomenon. Apparently its existence was not manifest to Dr. Safran. Bishop Staedel "tried to follow the policy of the German Christians". He certainly matched them in anti-Semitic heresies.

29 BULGARIA

a. The Preliminary Phase

Bulgaria was part ally, part satellite of Germany. In September, 1940, it acquired southern Dobrudja from Roumania. In March, 1941, the German army was admitted to Bulgaria. The Germans took Macedonia from Yugoslavia, Thrace from Greece, and handed them over to Bulgaria. <180> The number of Jews in Bulgaria at the end of 1939 amounted to 50,000. Approximately 15,000 more were added to the Bulgarian power sphere in the newly won territories. [413]

The "Law for the Protection of the Nation'; containing provisions for the definition, expropriation and concentration of the Jews, was adopted by a majority of the Parliament at the end of December 1, 1940, and promulgated on January 21, 1941. In August, 1942, wearing the yellow star was made compulsory for the entire Jewish population. At the same time Belev was appointed as Bulgarian Commissioner for Jewish Affairs.

On November 15, 1940, the "Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Church" sent a letter of Protest to the Prime Minister (Filov), with a copy to the Speaker of the Parliament. The letter was signed by the Deputy Chairman of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Neophyte. It read as follows:

"The Bulgarian Church has always kept a faithful and watchful eye on the destiny of the Bulgarian people throughout its existence. She has always had an unbroken link with its destiny, and shared in its wishes and longings, its joy and sorrow, its pain, its misfortunes and ideals. This concern of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church for the Bulgarian people was strongest in days of trial and danger. In such days she did everything in her power to prevent the nation from making big mistakes, as it was capable of doing, and to protect it from the dangers and calamities that threatened it. And whenever the warning voice of the national Church was heeded our people was kept from major disasters. On the other hand, when it ignored the warning voice of the Church, our people underwent danger and suffering. The Bulgarian Church follows with great satisfaction the efforts of our people and those of the Bulgarian authorities to protect the people and the fatherland from dangers that lie in wait for them from different quarters. Therefore, now too, the national Church is very glad to note that the Government is preparing a 'Law for the Protection of the Nation', to protect our people and everything Bulgarian from such dangers. The Church considers it her duty, however, precisely for the benefit of the nation, to draw the attention of the competent authorities to several defects in the proposed law, which could have bad consequences, and which also touch the Church as a divine institution, whose duty it is to watch over all her spiritual children and cause the will of God to rule in the cause of righteousness and mercy among human beings and the nations... <181> Let no account be taken of laws against the Jews as a national minority, but let purposeful steps be taken against all the real dangers to the spiritual, cultural, economical, public and political life of the Bulgarian people, from whatever direction these dangers come." [414]

It is typical of this letter that most of its contents could also have been written by any anti-fascist political, party, instead of by a Church.

Early in 1941, it became known that the "Law for the Protection of the Nation" was going to be ratified. Metropolitan Stephan then called for a plenary session of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Church, which passed a resolution agreeing to send a letter of protest to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in which it was pointed out that:

"... The principle of racialism which is the basic idea on which the above mentioned law is founded, has no justification from the point of view of the teachings of Jesus... The principle of racialism which encourages persecution and denies the rights of people, merely because of their race, in this case the Jewish race, has no justification, and therefore one cannot base the 'Law for the Protection of the Nation' on the principle of racialism. One cannot turn the 'Law for the Protection of the Nation' into a means of oppression and persecution of the Jewish minority in the land." [415]

On September 9, 1942, the Metropolitan of Sofia, Stephan, preached a sermon, probably in preparation of the "Feast of the Exaltation of the Honourable and Life-giving Cross". This feast of the Orthodox Church falls on September 14. The Metropolitan declared that:

"... God had punished the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus in that He had expelled them from their country and had not given them a country of their own. And thus, God had determined the destiny of the Jews. <182> However, men had no right to exercise cruelty towards the Jews and to persecute them. Especially Christians ought to see their brothers in Jews who had accepted the Christian religion and to support them in every possible way. He stressed several times in his sermon that truly it is in God's hands to punish twice and three times, but it is forbidden for Christians to do such a thing." [416]

Apparently there existed a brand of "theological" anti-Semitism in the Church of Bulgaria. Fortunately, it is difficult to state that "God had punished the Jews ... and had not given them a country of their own", since, in 1948, the State of Israel came into being. Perhaps we may consider it an encouraging fact that people who held such views of "theological" anti-Semitism, nevertheless have such an excellent record when practical help to the persecuted was proved necessary. This consideration, however, should not be used to exempt Church leaders from their duty to educate the faithful in a more Biblical and thus more humane spirit than that of Metropolitan Stephan's sermon, in 1942.

b. The Attempt to Deport the Jews

In January, 1943, Eichmann's representative Dannecker arrived in Bulgaria. On February 22, 1943, he concluded a written agreement with the Bulgarian Commissioner for Jewish Affairs, Belev, which provided for the deportation of 8,000 Jews from Macedonia, 6,000 from Thrace and 6,000 from Old Bulgaria. In March, deportations from the occupied Greek and Yugoslavian territories started. 11,363 Jews were deported from these regions. [417]

There were personal interventions by Church leaders, and an official Protest from the Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was issued, on behalf of the Bulgarian Jews who were threatened with deportation. <183>

Abraham Alphasy, who was then Head of the Jewish Community of Sofia, relates:

"... At that time I went, as the Chairman of the Jewish Congregation, to Metropolitan Stephan, a man with a highly-developed sense of justice, who was a faithful friend of the Jews. When I informed him about the preparations to deport the group of Jews to Germany and requested his intervention, he asked me from whom I had received this information. I replied that it was from a reliable source but for obvious reasons I could not reveal it. Then he immediately dressed and went to the palace of King Boris. The King, who guessed for what reason the Metropolitan had come, sent a message informing him that he was ill and could not receive him. The Metropolitan intimated, as he himself told me, that he would not leave the palace before he had seen the King. Finally, the King was compelled to receive him. The Metropolitan requested him to cancel the order to deliver the Jews to the Germans. The Metropolitan told him that, in the event that they would assault the Jews in order to send them to Germany, he would give instructions to open the gates of the churches and monasteries. They would give the Jews shelter. 'In this situation the King was compelled to promise to do as requested,' the Metropolitan told me..." [418]

We quote the following from the testimony of Joseph Geron, who served as head of the Jewish Community in Sofia, and afterwards became the Chairman of the Union of Jewish Congregations in Bulgaria:

"... Continuing, the witness gave details about united action with the head of the Church in Sofia, Metropolitan Stephan, by whom he was received three times. Dr. Kalmi, one of the leaders of Jewry, kept in touch with the general secretary of the Holy Synod, the body authorized to direct religious affairs in Bulgaria. Thanks to these contacts a meeting between the King and representatives of the Church took place concerning the rescue of the Jews... During his first meeting with the head of the Church in Sofia, the Metropolitan Stephan, he had said to him among other things: 'Cannot the Bulgarian Church do something similar to what the Catholic Church and the Pope himself are doing for the Jews, with an action for their rescue?' To this Stephan answered that the Bulgarian Church would follow the example of the Catholic Church and would do, and allow to be done, everything possible on behalf of the Jews..." [419] <184>

In March, 1943, Metropolitan Stephan called for a plenary session of the Holy Synod which was held April 2, 1943. He informed all the Metropolitans of the danger that was threatening Bulgarian Jewry. The Metropolitans unanimously decided to send a letter of Protest to the Prime Minister, Filov, and to the Minister of the Interior and of Religions. The letter read as follows:

The Law for the Protection of the Nation

"The idea of passing a Law for the Protection of the Nation which would annul dangers to our people and our state, on which the national, spiritual and moral unity of the Bulgarian people is founded, was accepted by our Holy Orthodox Church, which is the eternal guardian of the destiny of the Bulgarian people, and which knows better than others, from bitter historical experience, what it would mean to our people to be divided by false religious, national and economic teaching, and to be exploited by any minority. The need to restrain such disintegrating political and religious-sectarian ideas, has always existed in our country, as it also exists now. To-day, too, when the new destiny of our people is being decided, it is more than ever necessary to limit, with the help of the law, disintegrating factors in our land and, to harness them to the building of the healthy spiritual powers of our people and, to guarantee economic opportunities for every Bulgarian. However, already when this Law for the Protection of the Nation was made, the Holy Synod of our Church gave warning and begged that it should not be only based on the existing foundations and concepts, because in that case it would not meet the great objective standing before it: to safeguard against disintegrating influences and, to unite the Bulgarian people in a spiritual entity. The Law for the Protection of the Nation was created with the express purpose of limiting the Jewish minority; the main concept of the law is based on racialism. At that time the Holy Synod informed the Government, that the principle of racialism cannot be justified from the point of view of the Christian doctrine, being contrary to the fundamental message of the Christian Church, in which all who believe in Jesus Christ are men and women of equal worth. 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus' (Gal. 3, 28). The principle of racialism, according to which certain members of the community can be persecuted, restricted and deprived of their rights only because they belong to a certain race, in this case the Jewish race, cannot be justified from the standpoint of Christian ethics. Therefore the Church emphatically demands that the Law for the Protection of the Nation shall not be based mainly on the principles of racialism, but on those of spiritual wholeness and the protection of our people, so that it may safeguard them from those disintegrating influences which affect spiritual and religious values, and also from economic financial exploitation. <185> They did not listen to the voice of our Holy Synod. We now see, that the Law for the Protection of the Nation, nearly two years after its promulgation, instead of meeting its great task of safeguarding the Nation from damaging and disintegrating influences, and uniting its creative, healthy, spiritual and economic powers into a spiritual and moral unity, has turned into a means of restricting and persecuting the Jewish minority in our country."

Christians of Jewish Origin

"Many times our Holy Synod has requested in writing the honourable Government, from the promulgation of the Law until to-day, to ease the restricting passages of the Law against Christians of Jewish origin, and against the Jews in general. Until now both the written requests and the interventions of the Holy Synod have remained unanswered. Neither has any alleviation in the fate of the Jewish minority been granted. The Christians of Jewish origin are still forced to wear the star with the six points, the symbol of the Jewish religion, and they pay taxes to the Jewish consistory; in fact this is a gross profanation of our holy Orthodox religion, in as much as they have been baptized and received into the Church, some of them long before there was any word at all about the Law for the Protection of the Nation. In spite of our repeated requests to exempt them - what insults they have to bear as Christians - there has been no alleviation whatsoever."

The Jewish Minority

"Neither has there been any easing in the situation of the Jewish minority as a whole. Quite the contrary, restrictions are increasing daily. It has gone so far that these citizens of our country are deprived of the most elementary rights, and the Department for Jewish Affairs is free to do with them as it wishes; sending them to camps and deporting them from the country. Our people, with soul and conscience, mind and conviction, cannot tolerate injustice, cruelty and violence against anybody. It cannot accept what is being done now to the Jewish minority. Its human and Christian conscience is perplexed. The Holy Synod has also received requests from different quarters - from leading citizens who are outstanding Bulgarians, from well-known businessmen who love their fatherland, from Bulgarian mothers - to demand righteous and a humane treatment of the Jewish minority in the country. The Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Church cannot ignore its divine command and its holy duty. It must, according to the teaching of the Gospel concerning love of one's neighbour, raise a compassionate and defending voice in aid of the suffering sand wronged people; it must beg, guide and convince, so that the measures in general against the Jews may cease or at least be eased. God's law, which transcends all human laws, definitely obliges us not to be indifferent in the face of the sufferings of innocent people, of whatever race. The majority of our people also place their relationship with the suffering Jewish minority on this biblical and humane foundation. <186> Understandably our Holy Synod, as we have already stressed in another letter to the honourable Government, does not deny the right of the Bulgarian authorities to preserve the security of the State and to take all steps to safeguard this security; to persecute, to restrict, to punish. But the Holy Synod is charged with the divine duty to remind the Government that these steps must be taken with justice and in a humane spirit, so that they may surely attain their aim and be effective and lasting for the protection of the State. Until now, a historical line of justice and integrity has been the sure means for the protection of our people and our State. On these eternal foundations we also base our national and righteous demands, side along our hopes. The Bulgarian people as a whole has always, until now, been just and tolerant. Our nation, although it has suffered more than all the nations, does not love, nor tolerate, violence and cruelty We have this name and by it we are known amongst the other nations. We have realized our national aspirations, precisely because we knew they were just; and we wanted justice, both for ourselves and for others. May we Bulgarians, who have longed so much for a fair and decent attitude towards ourselves, now forsake our strongest weapon? The Bulgarian Orthodox Church fears that, if we destroy the eternal foundation - the right to live as free men and the divine commandment to be just - there no longer will be left to us, as a small people, any other strong support for our existence. The Bulgarian State must, therefore, abide by these truths, and apply them to all its subjects, who are guiltless (except for the fact that they were born in Bulgaria, but not of Bulgarian parents). A divine command and divine justice cannot be disregarded. The Holy Synod, meeting in the special session of April 2, of this year, has decided - after considering its deep concern for the honour and future of the Bulgarian people, and its responsibility before God - to inform you that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, as a national and divine institution, cannot agree to principles such as racialism, in which it is possible to foment hatred and to indulge in violence and cruelty. It cannot accept the principle that any race be deprived of the human right to live, since this right is in accordance with the fundamental principles of Christian religion and morality. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church is of the opinion that she cannot deny help and protection to the persecuted and oppressed. If she were to refuse such help, she would be unfaithful to herself. In this case our Holy Church was asked for help, by the Jews as well as by Christian Bulgarians, in order to improve the fate of the Jews in general. The Church does not deny and even especially stresses the duty and the right of the honourable Government to take the necessary steps to protect the people and the State from all dangers. However, she must stress the duty of the State to abide by the principles of justice and the Christian Gospel."

Three Requests "In consideration, therefore, the Holy Synod has decided to request you urgently: <187> 1. Not to deprive the Christians of Jewish origin and the Jews of our country in general of the elementary rights of human beings and of citizens; not to deprive them of the right to live in the country and of the possibility to work and to live as human beings. 2. The restricting decrees regarding the Jews must be both eased and not be enforced too strictly. 3. To cancel the unjustifiable obligation whereby Christians of Jewish origin wear both the Christian cross and the Jewish star, and whereby they pay taxes to the Jewish community. The Bulgarian Church considers herself especially obliged to raise her voice for the protection of the Christians of Jewish origin, who have cut themselves off from the Jewish community and who have been received into the bosom of the Bulgarian Church. She cannot accept that these Christians wear the symbol of the Jewish religion and that they pay taxes to the Jewish religious community, or that they be deported from their fatherland. In this case the Church cannot help but recall to mind the words of our Lord: 'and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again' (Matthew 7, 2), and with concern raise her voice in warning. We pray that God's blessing may be upon you, and fervently praying in the name of Jesus, we remain,..." [420]

Unfortunately, this Protest complained that "Christians of Jewish origin are still forced to wear the star with the six points", stating that "this is a gross profanation of our holy Orthodox religion". It also defended the Jews in general, stating that "the principle of racialism cannot be justified from the point of view of the Christian doctrine, being contrary to the fundamental message of the Christian Church." However, much of the argumentation was still national, rather than religious. Typical is the expression: "The Holy Synod,... after considering its deep concern for the honour and future of the Bulgarian people, and its responsibility before God... (in that order!). Absence of sound theology as regards the position of the Jewish people, combined with national considerations, is especially dangerous when one considers that (contrary to the case in Bulgaria) the national interest does not require to stand up for the persecuted Jews. <188>

After meetings had been held between the Metropolitan Stephan and Jewish businessmen, it was deemed essential to bring about a meeting between King Boris and the Holy Synod. However, the meeting did not take place immediately. This moved the Metropolitan of Vidin, Neophyte, the Chairman of the Holy Synod, to appeal to members of his flock (and intentionally, wide publicity was given to this letter) expressing opposition to the anti-Jewish measures. The Metropolitan Stephan, for his part, preached in the churches of Sofia, condemning the anti-Semitic policy of the Government and thus defending the Jews of his town.

"In that period, nobody in Bulgaria could compare with the higher clergy in courage. As a result of this outcry, the Government was compelled to arrange an audience between the King, the Cabinet and the higher clergy. The meeting took place on April 15, 1943, in the royal palace in Sofia. King Boris, the Metropolitan Stephan, Neophyte, Kyril, the Prime Minister Filov and others participated in the discussions in which the clergy defended the Jews with great courage." [421]

In May, 1943, the Commissioner for Jewish Affairs, Belev, submitted to King Boris two alternate plans: one for the deportation of all Bulgarian Jews to Poland, the other for their evacuation to the country. The King chose the latter. The expulsion order was published on May 25. [422] The Jews expelled from the cities were housed with Jewish families in the country and in schools. They were never deported from Bulgaria. On May 23, instructions concerning the deportations from Sofia began to be received by the Jews. Rabbis Daniel Ben Zion and Dr. Hanael, together with the lawyer Adolf Chaymov and Mr. Menachem Moshonov, decided to go to Metropolitan Stephan, who had called for them, in order to beg his intervention for the cancellation of the deportation decision. Mr. Moshonow relates: <189>

"... We went to the Metropolitan at 8,30 a.m. He wanted to know what we were doing and we told him everything in detail. He received us early and apparently was greatly concerned about our situation, because he was still in his dressing gown. After he had listened to us, he calmed us and promised to continue to do everything in his power to prevent the deportation of the Jews from the country. Metropolitan Stephan added that at the ceremony in honour of the feast of the saints Kyril and Methodius, which was taking place on that same day, May 24, 1943, he would meet the King and would speak to him again about that same matter. He seemed to be very moved and full of hope. He stressed anew that at one of his last meetings with the King, the latter, in the presence of the ecclesiastical high official Kyril, had specifically stated that the Jews would not be deported from Bulgaria. When we parted from the Metropolitan, he reassured us saying: 'Go and calm your brethren, tell them from me that the King has promised, and a King's word is not reversed'." [423]

Contrary to the situation in Rumania, the Church leaders in Bulgaria could indeed claim to express the feelings of "the majority of our people", [424] when they stood up for the Jews. Moreover, the great majority of the Bulgarians belonged to the Orthodox Church. Seldom, however, can a Church leader afford to address his King as Metropolitan Stephan addressed King Boris, in the telephone conversation which is related by Solomon Mashiach. His visits to Metropolitan Stephan probably took place on May 25 and 26, 1943. <190> "I went to the residence of prelate Stephan. He gave me a kind welcome and ordered that we should not be disturbed. He locked the door and I began to tell him our troubles. After he had listened to me with emotion and attention for nearly half an hour, he said: 'This I cannot permit as long as I live. There are many among the Jewish people who have rescued Bulgaria; they sacrificed much on behalf of the nation. I shall speak with the King immediately. I wish you to hear our conversation.' The prelate took the telephone and was connected with the King. After an exchange of words of no interest as far as the Jews are concerned, the prelate said: 'Boris, my son, I am not at all satisfied about you. One hears lately of many things done to our Israelite brethren. Think very hard [425]; it is unworthy of you and of the Bulgarian people.' The King asked: 'But what - what did you hear and from whom?' 'Things have come to my knowledge which I would rather not believe. They are a disgrace and shame to you and to the Bulgarian people. I cannot explain them to you by telephone. If you wish, come to me, or I shall come to you at once, to see with my own eyes what your reaction will be.' The King began to stammer and to excuse himself, saying that he could not meet Stephan on that day. He then made an appointment with him for the next day. I whispered to prelate Stephan: 'That will be too late'. Then the prelate said to him: 'Boris, let it not be too late. Pull yourself together, my son.' 'It will not be too late, I promise you. To-morrow we shall see one another.' Thus ended the first conversation. Prelate Stephan said to me: 'Come to-morrow morning, between 9 and 10. He is trying to give me the slip but I shall not permit him to bring such a disgrace, even if I would lose my head..."

"Next morning I again went to the Metropolitan Stephan to hear the outcome. He immediately took the telephone and was connected with the palace. The King's Councillor (Dr. Neshev, if I am not mistaken) replied. He said that the King had been urgently called away and had not intimated where he was going or when he would return. Metropolitan Stephan got very angry and said: 'Tell me where the little king is, you milksop. Tell others that you do not know, but beware if you continue to be stubborn'. Dr. Neshev apologized, saying he had been instructed not to reveal that the King was in his palace Krichim. He begged the Metropolitan not to divulge this information, as it would cause him trouble. Metropolitan Stephan promised to say nothing, but he asked Dr. Neshev: 'Did he expressly instruct you that you should not even reveal his whereabouts to me'? Dr. Neshev replied in the affirmative." <191> "Metropolitan Stephan was very angry and said to me that the King would regret his deed very much. 'At one time I saved his father's head and to him I gave the throne; now this is his reward to me.' In a great perturbed state of mind he took the telephone and spoke to the King in Krichim palace. I heard, word for word, the following: 'Boris, you forget yourself. You elude me and hide. You know that for me there are no secrets under the sun. You know that at one time I saved your father's head and your throne. But it is doubtful whether I, after these acts of yours, shall be able to save your head. Give the matter serious thought and uproot this demoniac influence from your heart.' He then put down the receiver. Afterwards the telephone began to ring. I said to Metropolitan Stephan: 'They are calling you'. He replied: 'I know; he wants to speak to me over the telephone but I shall not answer him unless he will come personally to apologize to me. You will see that he will not dare to cause you evil.'..." [426]

The last recorded activity of Metropolitan Stephan on behalf of the Jews is a telegram sent to the King, in which was written:

'Do not persecute, so that you may not be persecuted. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. I know, Boris, that from heaven God will keep watch over your actions.'" [427]

Another outstanding leader of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church who intervened on behalf of the Jews was the Metropolitan of Plovdiv, Kyril. Belev had ordered the internment of the "influential Jews" in several cities. On March 10, 1943, some of the Jews in Plovdiv were arrested. Early in the morning of that day, Kyril sent a telegram to the King and called upon the representatives of the regime, to inform the government that from that very moment, because of the action against the Jews, he (Kyril) had ceased to be a loyal citizen and would act according to the dictates of his conscience. [428] <192>

Leviev relates another incident in which Metropolitan Kyril was the hero:

"It is fitting to bear in mind, as a token of the personal courage of Metropolitan Kyril, the date of May 20, 1944. Early in the morning, when it was still dark, he was awakened by a Jewish boy, who had been sent to inform the Metropolitan that during that night large groups of Jews had again been arrested. The Metropolitan went to the Jewish quarter, where many Jews were gathered in a square; Rabbi Samuel, who was wholly dedicated to his people, was at their head, giving them courage. The appearance of the Metropolitan was received by the Jews with relief and hope. The Metropolitan immediately went to the district office where he only found Kolev, the deputy district officer, of whom he demanded particulars about the extent and the meaning of the arrests. Kyril draw his attention to the dangerous consequences which might result from the confusion, created in the mind of the public, and who were not likely to remain inactive in the face of renewed injustice and violence. It was explained to him that about 2,000 Jews had been arrested because a group of five Jewish youngsters had joined the underground movement. The Metropolitan demanded that they set the arrested Jews free; otherwise great public disturbances would occur. After having obtained a promise in this respect, he went to the police station, where the arrested people were held, and encouraged them. He met with the police commander and with his assistants, and pointed out to them that the entire public was following with attention the fate of the arrested Jews. The arrested people were set free at the end of that day." [429]

It appears that an important factor influencing Church leaders in Bulgaria to act was their genuine concern. Thus they were easily accessible whenever their help was needed. It seems to be a small feature in the over-all picture, but it is significant: Kyril got up early in the morning when it was still dark and rushed to the rescue of the arrested Jews in Plovdiv; Stephan received Jewish leaders when he was still in his dressing gown. Jewish leaders in Israel as well as Jews in Bulgaria who now live under a Communist government, have expressed their appreciation of the help rendered by the Church in Bulgaria. We quote the following from the testimony of Joseph Geron, who served as head of the Jewish community in Sofia, and afterwards became the Chairman of the Union of Jewish Congregations in Bulgaria: <193>

"... The witness stressed the fact that the Bulgarian Church, on many occasions and at different periods, revealed understanding and sympathy for the Jews, and took important actions for their rescue... Concerning the Bulgarian Church, her attitude to the Jews was always very correct, but during the events which accompanied Jewish life under the rule of Prime Minister Filov, the Church revealed an attitude of open sympathy, and exercised strong moral pressure on all the decisive factors in Jewish affairs... What then were the factors that, directly and indirectly, helped in the rescue of the Jews of Bulgaria? One may answer that there were collective and individual factors. Among the former, the Orthodox Bulgarian Church, with its leaders Stephan, Neophyte and Paisly, take the first place..." [430]

Of course, in Bulgaria just as in other countries there were many factors helping to influence the outcome. King Boris and the Cabinet were in a position to withstand German pressure to some extent if they wished so. The victories of the Soviet armies made their mark on the minds of the people. It appears, however, that the activities of the leaders of the Orthodox Church were an important contribution to the positive outcome. All the Jews of Bulgaria survived. Yet, there remains one nagging question: did the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria try to render any aid to the more than 11,000 Jews who were deported from the Greek and Yugoslavian territories occupied by Bulgarian troops? It seems that they did not, but perhaps there was no time to intervene. [431]

30 HUNGARY

a. The Preliminary Phase

In November, 1938, Hungary annexed some Slovakian districts and part of Sub Carpathian Ruthenia. In March, 1939, the remainder of the latter territory was annexed. In August, 1940, Hungary occupied Northern Transylvania. In April, 1941, part of Yugoslavia was occupied. In its enlarged state, Hungary had a Jewish population of 750,000 within its borders. [432] <194>

On June 22, 1941, Germany invaded Russia and the Hungarians joined forces with the Germans. On August 8, the third anti-Jewish law was enacted. [433] This law defined who was to be considered a Jew, according to the well-known principles of the Nuremberg laws.

"Bishop Ravasz, the leading speaker of the representatives of the Reformed Church, after having delivered his address of refusal, read a solemn declaration signed by all the Bishops, and by four general elders, in which the signatories protested against the passage of the law and disclaimed all responsibility for its passage." [434]

I have tried to obtain a copy of Bishop Ravasz's address of refusal and of the declaration mentioned above. Dr. Elek Mathe, of the Reformed Church of Hungary, replied to my request:

"Unfortunately there is no available copy of the address referred to in your letter...; even less, newspaper cuttings, for the simple reason that at that time the daily press was under strict government control and the text of such an address could not be printed. [435]

In the summer of 1941, the Hungarian government ordered an inquiry into the citizenship of all the Jewish residents of Northern Hungary. 11,000 Jews unable to give satisfactory proof of their citizenship were deported to Galicia, where a systematic extermination was carried out by the German troops.

"Baroness Edith Weisz called on Bishop Ravasz, and asked for his intervention. The Bishop requested an audience with the Regent, and appearing before him, informed him of the situation and asked that the Minister of Interior be instructed to give due regard to humanitarian viewpoints. <195> Bishop Ravasz then called on Francis Kereszres-Fischer, Minister of the Interior, who himself later on was carried away by the Germans, warning him that after the conclusion of the war an account would have to be given before world Protestantism, of the fate meted out to the Jews. He requested the adoption of such measures as would enable him to appear before any foreign Church body in future days, with a clear conscience regarding these matters. An end was put to all abuses and the lives of many persons were saved." [436]

Bishop Ravasz thus tried to do something on behalf of non-Hungarian Jews, this in contrast to the tendency of those in other lands who rendered resistance only when Jews of their own nationality were deported.

From March, 1942, to March, 1944, Kallay was Prime Minister. His Cabinet withstood German pressure to deport the Jews.

b. Mass Deportations

On March 17, 1944, Regent Horthy was "invited" to a conference with Hitler, who informed him of the imminent occupation of Hungary by German troops. Horthy had to agree to Kallay's dismissal. The aerodromes of Budapest were seized by a German task force. A new Government was appointed under Sztojay. The Arrow Cross leader, Laszlo Baky, was appointed Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Interior, and Laszlo Endre Administrative Under-secretary and expert on Jewish affairs. Veesenmayer was appointed as Ambassador to Hungary and as Plenipotentiary of the German Reich. Eichmann came to Budapest at the end of March. On March 29, 1944, it was decreed that all Jews must wear the yellow star. Concentration of all the Jews took place at a rapid pace. In May, the first deportation trains left for Auschwitz. At the end of June, 381,661 Jews had been deported. On July 9, 1944, the total number was 437,402. The evacuation of the Jews of Budapest was planned for July. <196> Concerted pressure was exerted on Regent Horthy to stop the deportations. Switzerland and Sweden made urgent requests. The Turkish and Spanish governments also intervened. The Papal nuncio was, according to Sztojay, calling "several times" a day. On July 6, Sztojay informed Veesenmayer that the Regent had given the order that the deportations should stop. In fact, the stoppage occurred in the middle of July and it lasted until October.

On April 3, 1944, Bishop Laszlo Ravasz addressed a letter of protest to the Minister of the Interior. In this document Bishop Ravasz did not object to the stigmatization of the Jews, but to the regulations that required members of the Reformed Church to wear the star of David. [437] At the same time he called on Ambrozy, the Regent's chef de cabinet, and asked to be granted an audience with the Regent. He was informed that "the Regent regards himself a prisoner and will not receive anyone". Subsequently Bishop Ravasz called on the Minister of Interior, who asked him to return at 7 p.m. the same day.

"Jaross, who kept the Bishop waiting till 8 p.m., agreed, after a heated argument, to exempt certain Church dignitaries and persons of Jewish origin who had contracted mixed marriages." [438]

On April 6, the General Assembly of the Reformed Church addressed a petition to the Prime Minister, urging him to be mindful of the claims of humanitarian thinking, and demanding the extension of granting exemptions.

"All the activities carried on by the Churches in these days, centred around the Jewish question. However, as the government was but a mere tool in the hands of the Nazi regime, expressly antagonistic toward the Churches, it paid little regard to the action of the Churches. The results reached accordingly were rather meagre. Yet, meagre as they were, they meant the saving of many lives. The most important result was the exemption secured for members of mixed marriages. This one measure alone meant exemption from the wearing of the yellow star and its fearful consequences for several thousand families <197> The Churches already at that time demanded the formation of a body authorised to grant exemptions whenever individual merits made the granting of the same justified. This demand, although not granted in its original form, led later on the recognition of the Regent's right to grant exemption, through which channel some twenty thousand persons were given exemption. [439]

Under the influence of the news reaching the capital, Bishop Ravasz asked the Regent - a Protestant - for an audience, which was granted on April 12, 1944.

"He entreated the Regent to abstain from any action in connection with the Jewish question, for which at some future date he might have to bear the responsibility, pointing out that the blame for cruelties, should these occur, would be laid at his door and that he would render himself liable to trial for same. 'The desperadoes,' said the Bishop, 'will not fail to make an attempt to have their own accounts paid out of the moral capital of others'. Horthy reassured the Bishop." [440]

A few days later, however, Baron Zsigmond Perenyi, President of the Upper House, called upon Bishop Ravasz and informed him of his sad experiences in Northern Hungary. On April 28, Bishop Ravasz was again received in audience by the Regent, to whom he passed on the information gathered by Perenyi. Horthy's answer was as follows:

"Only a few hundred thousands Jews were scheduled to leave the country with the labour battalions. No harm will befall them, not a hair of their heads will be touched. They will enjoy the same treatment as the nearly hundred thousand Hungarian labourers employed abroad?..."

The Regent admitted that complaints had been received from Nyiregyhaza, whereupon he had sent for the Minister of Interior, Jaross, and had asked for an investigation to be instituted. Jaross had charged his two Under- Secretaries with the investigation, and had since reported that a stop had been put to the scandalous treatment. [441]

On May 9, 1944, Bishop Ravasz called on Prime Minister Sztojay and protested against the atrocities committed against the Jews. <198>

"He presented the petition of the Reformed Assembly referring to the horrors which occurred during the concentration of the Jews at Marosvisihely, Kolozsvir, Kassa and Nagybanya.

The Prime Minister seemed to have been informed about the situation and declared that he condemned the brutalities, stating that he had given instructions for the separation to be carried out drastically, but humanely. "The Jews are a race", he said, "and thus the regulation of the Jewish problem is not a question of religion, but of race". [442]

On May 17, 1944, the Assembly of the Reformed Church sent a letter to Prime Minister Sztojay in which two matters were emphasized. First, it recalled the promises which the Prime Minister had made regarding amelioration of the cruel measures and, second, it protested against the segregation of the Jews which had already begun.

"We are compelled to declare that we most resolutely disapprove the segregation of persons classified as Jews. We are of the opinion that the measures adopted by Christian Society in times past in this direction, must not be repeated... The second thing which we have to mention is as yet an anxious presentiment. Signs are not lacking to show that, besides segregation, the deportation of the Jews beyond the country's boundaries is also in preparation. We have to call your Excellency's attention to the tragic developments which mark the conclusion of Jewish deportations in other countries, and we beg your Excellency to do all that can be done in order to impede such happenings and to avert responsibility for such acts from the Royal Government and from the whole nation." [443]

Bishop Ravasz then tried to join forces with the Roman Catholic Church and informed the Chairman of the Holy Cross Society (which was charged with the protection and care of Catholics of Jewish origin) of his willingness to make the introductory steps for a united action. On June 15, 1944, he sent a letter to the Primate, Justinian Serkdi, saying that he had already prepared the draft for a memorandum (of which a copy was included) to be sent to the Government, as "a final earnest warning" before the Churches should "voice their solemn declaration in protest, in the presence of the country and the world". No reply from Primate Seredi, however, was received. [444] <199>

As nothing could be learned from the press, the authorities of the Church sent a young pastor to Kassa, the largest ghetto. He returned from his trip of inspection, reporting that, notwithstanding the protestations and promises of the Prime Minister, the deportation of Jews had begun. Therefore pastors were dispatched to carry the text of the memorandum that had been prepared, to the nine Bishops, in order to obtain their consent. After they had signed it, a deputation presented it to the Prime Minister, on June 23, 1944. Its text was as follows:

"In our memorandum of May 19 we mentioned, with foreboding, that there was a possibility of the deportation of the Hungarian Jews to an unknown destination. Since then information has reached us, according to which Jews have been crossing the frontier in sealed wagons day after day, disappearing from our sight, bound for an unknown destination. Each of these wagons contained about 70 to 80 persons of different sex, age and social standing, of both Israelite and Christian faith. The persons deported, as well as, their relatives are convinced that this journey is leading to final destruction. The solution of the Jewish question is a political task. We now are not dealing with politics. The execution of this solution is a great work of administration. We are not experts on that. But the moment the solution of the Jewish question challenges the eternal laws of God, we are in duty bound to raise our voice, condemning, but at the same time imploring, the head of the responsible Government. We cannot act otherwise. We have been commanded by God to preach His eternal Gospel, to give evidence of the unalterable laws of His moral order for this generation, whether people like it or not. Although humble and sinful men, we, in the bondage of faith and obedience to this heavenly command, possess the right to give evidence of the Word of God and to condemn every action which outrages human dignity, justice or charity, and which loads upon the head of our people the horrible responsibility of innocently shed blood. As Bishops of the two Protestant Churches we protest against devout members of our congregations being punished merely for being considered Jews from a racial point of view. They are being punished for a Jewish mentality from which they, and in many cases their ancestors, have solemnly disconnected themselves. Their lives, as regards Christian spirit and morality, are not considered in the least. <200> Finally we, as Hungarians and as clergymen, repeatedly implore Your Excellency to put an end to the cruelties, even disapproved of by yourself, and to enforce the declaration made by a prominent member of your Cabinet, protesting against the very idea of a senseless and cruel destruction of the Jews. We do not wish to aggravate your Excellency's political position; we even wish to promote the solution of the great task you have taken upon yourself. For this reason, for the time being, we do not carry our protest before the Hungarian public, although this course will incur for us the reproach and accusation of the leading bodies of the Christian Churches. Should, however, our intervention prove ineffective, we will be obliged to testify before the congregations of our Church and the Protestants of the world, that we did not suppress the message of God. As a last attempt we appeal, through the kindness of your Hungarian heart and the Christian feelings of your Excellency, to the leniency of the Royal Hungarian Government. We desire that this, the most painful manifestation in our whole history hitherto, should become the case of the Government." [445]

The Bishops were afraid of "the reproach and accusation of the leading bodies of the Christian Churches", in the event of remaining silent. Apparently the anticipated verdict of Churches in other countries, and of the World Council of Churches, was one of the factors which urged action. The Churches made a clear stand in this memorandum, though certainly not everything in it is of prophetic power.

The deputation submitting this memorandum, which in its way was a kind of ultimatum, supported it by word of mouth. Prime Minister Sztojay answered bluntly:

"The two Secretaries of State of the Ministry of Interior have reported that, except in certain cases, no atrocities have been committed. Germany has need of man power, and the Jews are being taken there for labour purposes."

In their reply, the members of the Protestant deputation pointed out to the Prime Minister that deported babies, pregnant women and old people were certainly of no use for that purpose. Sztojay's answer to this was that the authorities did not want the Jews working abroad to feel anxious about the families they had left behind, nor the families to worry as to the fate of the deported Jewish men. <201>

The deputation proposed that the Churches be permitted to care for children whose parents had been selected for such "labour purposes". The Prime Minister consented to this request, but asked that it be submitted in writing. The deputation immediately composed and handed over the written request. It was never answered. [446]

A Confidential Report sent by the Hungarian Protestants to the Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, states:

"... Not a single line on all this has been published, either in the ecclesiastical or in the daily press; for when the first Memorandum was personally handed over, the Government made it a condition that the whole intervention be handled with the utmost discretion and no press-comments whatsoever were to be made: in this case the Government were willing on their part to do everything possible; if press-comments were made it would appear as though the Government, considering the echoes in the press, had taken alleviating i.e. modifying measures in their sudden fear. The date to answer the last Memorandum expires to-morrow and if no adequate essential measures are taken by then, uniform sermons and a strongly worded pastoral letter will be read from every pulpit on next Sunday." [447]

No answer came to the Memorandum. Thus Bishops Ravasz and Kapi decided to address an open declaration to the congregations and to the Protestant Christianity of the world:

"We request all our brethren, the pastors belonging to our communions, that they read the following message to the congregations at the conclusion of next Sunday's morning service: To all congregations of the Hungarian Reformed Church and of the Hungarian Lutheran Church, Grace unto you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Brethren in Christ! The undersigned Bishops of the Hungarian Reformed Church and of the Hungarian Lutheran Church address you and inform you, in the presence of God, of the steps taken before the Royal Hungarian Government in the name of the Protestant Churches. <202> We notify the congregations that the two Protestant Churches, after several proposals both by word of mouth and in writing, on June 21st presented to the Royal Hungarian Prime Minister a solemn memorandum of request and protest. This memorandum pointed out the more than regrettable events accompanying the concentration and deportation of Jews, whether Christian or not. After having stated that the solution of the Jewish question violates eternal Divine laws, the memorandum continued its proposals as follows: 'We have been commanded by God to preach His eternal Gospel, to give evidence of the unalterable laws of His moral order in this generation, whether people like it or not. Although humble and sinful men, we, in the bondage of faith and obedience to this heavenly command, possess the right to give evidence of the Word of God and to condemn every action which outrages human dignity, justice or charity, and which loads upon the head of our people the horrible responsibility of innocently shed blood.' At the same time we beseeched the Royal Hungarian Government to put an end to the cruelties which were also condemned by members of the Cabinet, and to enforce those declarations that protested against the very suggestion of the destruction of the Jews, while at the same time they issued orders that the Jews should be treated humanely. We were deeply afflicted when we were forced to admit that our entreaties had been in vain. We, the Bishops of the two Protestant Churches, considered it to be our duty to inform our faithful, as well as, every member of our congregation and the universal community of Christ's Holy Church of these events. We summon the congregations to repentance and the entire Hungarian nation to penitence under the mighty hand of God. Pray to Him and beseech Him to turn His mercy and His supporting Grace towards our Hungarian nation."

Your loving brethren in Christ: the last Sunday in June, 1944. [448]

The proclamation was lithographed and, as a necessary precaution, put into differently coloured envelopes. It was intended to post it to the two thousand clergymen in the country from different provincial post offices. At this juncture, the Minister of Religion and Education sent word by telephone that a pastoral letter of the Primate, addressed to the Bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church, had been intercepted and that the Government wished to have a conference with the Churches. On July 11, 1944, the Minister visited Bishop Ravasz, who was ill.

"The Minister declared that the Prime Minister had promised the abolition of atrocities, the cessation of further deportations and that the isolation of the Jews would be carried out in a humane manner. 'That,' he said, 'was the agreement with the Catholic Church'. <203> He could not at that time produce it in writing, but that was the text and essential contents of the agreement with the Catholics. At great length he persuaded and threatened the sick Bishop that if they persisted in protesting in public, the Church would be 'overwhelmed', or the Government might resign, thereby paving the way for the coming into power of the Arrow Cross Party. If, however, they came to an agreement, the lives of 250,000 Budapest Jews would be saved." [449]

Bishop Ravasz believed the Minister's statement regarding the agreement with the Primate, but he insisted that the clergy should, at any event, be allowed to read out a short note in the Reformed Churches. This note was immediately drafted. It reads as follows:

"Reverend Pastor! We request that you read the following announcement at the conclusion of next Sunday's morning service [July, 16]: 'The Bishops of the Reformed Church of Hungary and the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church of Hungary wish to inform the congregations that in connection with the Jewish question, and particularly in the case of baptised Jews, they have repeatedly intervened with the competent Government authorities. Their endeavours in this respect are continuing'." [450]

It is difficult to answer the question whether it was the right decision to cancel the public proclamation of the pastoral letter form all the pulpits. Dr. Mathe wrote to me:

"... This circular [the pastoral letter] reached all the pastors, and they undoubtedly communicated its contents to most of their parishioners." [451]

The deportations were stopped. The Archbishop of Canterbury addressed "the Christian people of Hungary" through the B.B.C., in July, 1944. He begged them "to do your utmost, even taking great personal risks, in order to save some if you can". [452] This appeal may have had more direct, practical effects than the short note that was read out from the pulpits. <204>